91Èȱ¬

She's a disgrace. Glad this is getting reported in the UK. What's worse is that Coulter talks herself up as a CHRISTIAN! Read her wiki-profile, she's written books on religion and argues for a Christian America. God protect us!

Whats the difference between ann coulter and most of the homophobic crap we hear in the UK dressed up as a religious view? They may not use the term faggot but the effects the same. fundamentalist churches and intolerant politicians.

Thanks for the link to the pettion Will. I've already signed it and i suggest others do the same. Let's get a transatlantic campaign going to silence this hate-monger Coulter.

Well said gareth and DD
The religious nutters haven't realised this blog is accepting comments again - they'll be back soon!
alan

Forget Coulter! She sells her own books through outrageous behavior.

Now when the CEO of a major news channel deliberately compares a presidential candidate with Osama bin Laden then we do have a major problem!

LAS VEGAS, Nevada (CNN) -- A Nevada Democratic presidential debate that was to have been co-hosted by Fox News Network was canceled by organizers, in part because of a joke by Fox Chairman and CEO Roger Ailes about presidential contender Sen. Barack Obama. Democrats canceled the debate Friday. They said a comment by Ailes during a Thursday night speech to a group of radio and television news directors indicated the network was biased against their party. "It's true that Barack Obama is on the move," Ailes said, deliberately confusing the Illinois senator's name with that of terrorist leader Osama bin Laden. "I don't know if it's true President Bush called [Pakistan President Pervez] Musharraf and said, 'Why can't we catch this guy?' "

Regards,
Michael

How naive people are. Ann Coulter is a TV personality selling herself and a book. She doesn't care what you think of her just so long as you care at all. Like others of her ilk, she will say and do anything within a very wide latitude to make you feel some connection to her even if it is pure hate. That's how she makes money. Perhaps if she gets enough people in a community to hate her, some of them including librarians will buy her book. Libraries will buy it so that people can read it first hand if they have a mind to because they've heard of her. Write a letter to the TV stations she appears on and they know you are watching their programs which is all they care about. To a commercial broadcaster ratings are everything. Others like Rush Limbaugh do exactly the same. Someone in my house detests "the domestic diva" Martha Stewart. It's amazing how many times I see this person watching her programs, seething all the time it's on. For these media personalities any publicity is good publicity. And the fact that people in far off Northern Ireland sit up and take notice of her proves that it works. The worst thing you can do to these people is to ignore them because they don't matter. That's what I do because they don't. By the way William, when are you interviewing Ann Coulter on your programme? :-)

John seems to think a gay man cannot be trusted as a guide to a debate about homophobic language! I suppose a black person couldn't be trusted as a guide to a debate about the use of the word "niggar". Strange reasoning there.

How can anyone in this day and age claim that the word "faggot" is not homophobic?

Sullivan's too emotionally involved obviously, says John. Like a black person might be too easily offended by being called racist terms.

Anyway, says John, it wasn't aimed at a gay man. Coulter was merely using the term to call attention to John Edwards'flakiness and wishy-washy tendencies. Oh, that's all right then. I suppose it's all right for me to call someone antisemitic terms to call attention to their fondness for money or the length of their nose? Come on John, you're more intelligent than that.

Totally agree with Jane. Crazy that anybody would step up to defend that right-wing nut Ann Coulter on this one. It's so easy for white heterosexuals to sit back and mock gays and blacks for taking offence at homophobic and racist language. It's abuse and it's unacceptable in a civilised society. I'm not saying Coulter should be arrested or banned from saying these things. I'm just saying that the tolerant voices need to rise up and condemn her when she does. Frankly, the defense she's received here from a couple of commenters is worse than her original comments.

Ultimately, Coulter is a low-life who tramples over vulnerable people and groups in order to build a reputation for herself. If I didn't have to go into rehab for saying it, I'd call her a bitch. But that's beneath me. She's certainly got a couple of brain-dead poodles barking up her tree here though. I'm sure John and Stephen won't take offence at that. After all, it's just language right?

Are comments being deleted?

SG

Will

possibly a quite searing set of double standards from you???

How can you have Richard Dawkins describe Christians and other people of faith as having "a mental illness" and not bat an eyelid......and yet you go crazy over this?

Dont you realise both qualify equally as "hate crimes" in Northern Ireland?

Now if this lady had said that gays were "suffering a mental illness" what would you have said?

In an office full of "enlightened liberals" for the best part of a year I was the only person who ever defended a colleague from such terms as "faggot" thrown at him by another person who considered themself a liberal and had no time for God or the bible.

I would suggest the vast majority of people who take their Christian faith seriously would baulk at the use of such terms; I have never heard any of the UK Christian lobby groups ever use anything remotely like this.

Impartiality anyone?

PB

fyi Hate Crimes....

Will
possibly a quite stark set of double standards from you???

How can you have Richard Dawkins describe Christians and other people of faith as having "a mental illness" and not bat an eyelid......and yet you go crazy over this?
Dont you realise both qualify equally as "hate crimes" in Northern Ireland?



Now if this lady had said that people of any specified sexuality were "suffering a mental illness" what would you have said?

In an office full of "enlightened liberals" for the best part of a year I was the only person who ever defended a colleague from such terms as "faggot" thrown at him by another person who considered themself a liberal and had no time for God or the bible.

I would suggest the vast majority of people who take their Christian faith seriously would baulk at the use of such terms; I have never heard any of the UK Christian lobby groups ever use anything remotely like this.

PB

Will
possibly a quite stark set of double standards from you???

How can you have Richard Dawkins describe Christians and other people of faith as having "a mental illness" and not bat an eyelid......and yet you go crazy over this?

Dont you realise both qualify equally as "hate crimes" in Northern Ireland?



Now if this lady had said that people of a certain sexuality were "suffering a mental illness" what would you have said?

In an office full of "enlightened liberals" for the best part of a year I was the only person who ever defended a colleague from such terms as "faggot" thrown at him by another person who considered themself a liberal and had no time for God or the bible.

I would suggest the vast majority of people who take their Christian faith seriously would baulk at the use of such terms; I have never heard any of the UK Christian lobby groups ever use anything remotely like this.

PB

PS This entry appeared and was then deleted.... can anyone explain why?

pb - did you actually watch Will's interview with Richard Dawkins? In the interview Dawkins is challenged on exactly this point and Will gets him to retract the mental illness language. I think I've read you here giving a review of the interview and saying you havent actually watched it (!!), and your comments here are consistent with that.

Alan:

Is "religious nutters" your idea of reasonable, non-inflammatory, inoffensive speech?

*cough* hypocrite *cough*

SG

SG ref post 15 - my point exactly.

Helenanne, the same thing applies.

no I have no problem saying I didnt see the interview, this entry is not about the Dakwins interview and I am not actually talking about Will's interview with Dawkins.

I am talking about the number of times Dawkins has already made this comment in public and in his writings and the fact that Will has always taken a very laid back approach to such comments. Yes he challenged him in his interview, but he never got worked up as he did about the use of the term faggot, above.

So my point still stands exactly as SG made it -

There has never been one iota of outrage on this website about Dawkins using such terms to describe people of faith - NEVER!

But - I repeat - if Dakwins had described gay people as being "mentally ill" you guys would have been all over him frothing at the mouths like a shoal of piranas.

ergo, double standards.

Even the Northern Ireland police agree with me that both Dawkins and Coulter would be guilty of "hate crimes".

see the link above for yourself, post 13.

PB

When I first came to America in 1960 "faggot" was an accepted term of abuse, though not in polite circles. I have not heard it in years. Tennessee Williams' "A Streetcar Named Desire" was about a dozen years old: in one of its most dramatic details, a woman discovers her husband in a compromising scene with another man; the husband then kills himself. I knew a distinguished American Professor who drank too much for several years because of guilt, generated by himself as well as society, about his sexual orientation, before bidding farewell to drink and becoming a prolific writer.

I actually ignore Ann Coulter. She is a product of the US Media and like most products of US Media deserves a pie in the face.

What worries me more than people who make such remarks are those whose first reaction is "ban it!" or "silence it!" - these people are the real threats to modern society.

SG

I've come to the conclusion that you simply love a good witch-hunt, particularly when it involves political correctness of some kind wherein what something can be construed to mean is more important than the intention of the original speaker. Forgive me for not joining in, though, and excuse my appeal to rational thought (I know that grates at times). :-)

John:

And lets not forget their desire to show how "good" and "decent" (read: "self-righteous") they are by displaying their moral outrage about these types of things.

Shame on anyone who thinks Coulter should be "silenced" or "banned."

SG

PS...I wonder how many people will misconstrue my comments as in some way endorsing Coulter's.

Bit off topic but ....

remember the discussion on Catholic agencies 'rights' in placing children with non-homosexual 'parents'.

Here's a twist .....

Regards,
Michael

Yes, it doesnt happen very often but I agree with JW and SG here.

It seems we are now in a society where rational thought and facts take second place to emotion and sentiment every time.

PB

And no, I'm not defending Coulter.

I think there is a misconception about American commercial television among viewers outside the US. The type of talk shows Ann Coulter appears on are not news programs even if they appear on what are referred to as news channels. Their purpose is not necessarily to inform but to entertain. This type of program was pioneered by people like Phil Donahue. They are structured to arouse people's emotions by presenting extreme views, often uninformed views. We don't really know if all of the people who appear on these shows actually believe everything they say or just say what they think will arouse an audience. To spice it up even more, uninformed opinions from a live audience or from people who call on the phone are solicited. Of all of them, I think the most dangerous was Jeraldo Rivera who had O.J. Simpson tried and convicted on his show night after night for years. It's to the credit of the jury system that the jury in the trial came back with a verdict not that O.J. was actually innocent but that the prosecution hadn't proved that he was guilty in spite of all this publicity. Anyone taking this "infotainment" seriously is bound to be mislead. And yes Jim she does look like a witch. I think she portrays herself that way deliberately. I think she was at one time a prosecutor. That helped to create that image.

Mark, I agree.

And why would anyone care so much about what Ann Coulter thinks? It just boggles my mind that there are this many people who think this is of any consequence whatsoever. Some people seem to think that Coulter should be held to a more stingent standard than anyone else.... for what reason I'm not at all sure ...William describes her as a "frighteningly influential figure"; where is the evidence for that? She's one of many political commentators in the U.S. who sells a few books and appears on a few talk shows. The only conclusion I'm left with is that it's because she's a conservative. I've never heard Michael Moore described as a "frighteningly influential figure", yet he fits the bill much better than Coulter, actually. It's a veritable double-standard that we're seeing here. Moore is awarded an Academy Award for making a film that was deceptive, misleading nonsense; Coulter says the word "faggot" and is crucified for it. Anyone who doesn't see the hypocrisy therein is truly more interested in political correctness than in truth.

Three further points.

1) I wonder how many of you Brits knew who Ann Coulter was before you were so quick to slam her (not having even had the benefit of reading a proper news story)? Don't worry, it's a rhetorical question.

2) I see nobody has provided any link at all to Coulter's response in her own defense. (Part of her reply was hilarious: "C'mon, it was a joke. I would never insult gays by suggesting that they are like John Edwards. That would be mean.")

3) Has anyone even bothered to notice that the reason any controversy at all emerged out of this is that John Edwards posted this on his website in an effort to raise $100,000 in 'Coulter Cash' for his political campaign? How awful the whole experience must have been for him.

On John Wright's post 26: you raise a very good point about whether people in the UK have ever heard of Ann Coulter.

If I go into an average UK bookshop I can buy loads of books expressing the Michael Moore "evil America" line or the Al Franken "evil Republican Party" line, but I have yet to see any books from Ann Coulter or anyone similar in any mainstream bookshop.

Many Brits are convinced that Americans are brainwashed by Fox News, something that virtually none of them have actually watched. They never seem to grasp that people in a country such as the US where there is a much wider range of opinion available in the news (from both left and right) might actually be less brainwashed than those who get all their views from the 91Èȱ¬.

I agree David

If Fox News runs America why is abortion still legal there?

PB

David (post 27): Absolutely. America isn't called the 'melting pot' for nothing, and having lived in both places I can testify that there are all extremes here on all sides, and, if the market is big enough, all of those opinions are provided for in media. Howard Stern is hugely successful alongside Rush Limbaugh, but somehow liberals only seem to complain about Limbaugh and conservatives only seem to complain about Stern. I think they all need to grow up and learn to live in a free country; a country which encompasses a myriad of viewpoints, cultures and standards. Undoubtedly Fox News is catering to a target audience - that's their perogative. CNN is doing the same thing to their target audience which is more left-wing. Who cares? And, by the way, there are leftwing views on Fox News all the time, and I think its lack of 'balance' is widely exaggerated. I find the 91Èȱ¬ just as impartial in many cases (though don't try to tell them that).

Comments...29? I only see 26...

Ummmmmmmmm.............

John:

And in actual fact Fox News and other "biased" forms of media are probably much more honest because they make no attempt to cover themselves up and you always know where they are coming from and where they stand. The 91Èȱ¬ is fundamentally dishonest insofar as it clings haplessly to its deluded belief that its providing neutral, objective news and features. It isn't. In fact, that's impossible.

SG

....when was the last time William might have highlighted the hyperlink for a signing a non-liberal petition, anyone?

PB

This is a gross misrepresentation of what Ann Coulter said.

She didn't describe Senator John Edwards as a "faggot". She said that she could not describe him as a "faggot" because then she would have to go into rehab.

This was actually a reference to a recent fight on Grey's anatomy, where Isaiah Washington ended up having to make a public apology and spend a week in rehab (with anger management classes) for using the "f" word.

Ann was making an ironic comment about how the liberal media allowed free speech, but only for liberals.

For example, in the United States you can make comments about how you wish Dick Cheney had been killed in a terrorist attack (which happened at the same time on a liberal talk show).

But woe betide any individual who hurls a homophobic insult at a co-star ....

Next stop the gulag ....